accountability for the i.r.s.. i.r.s.er thing about the and their handling of this, we keep being told that there are five million people that have lost their policies. as i understand it it's five million policies. we're talking about a lot more than five million people. when you think about the people who are going to have to pay for their health care the extra billion dollars for new i.r.s. agents, and the billions of dollars over time that will be paid for the navigators and all those people who won't provide any health care whatsoever, it is staggering and people across america from the polls are figuring out, this isn't about the health care, this is about the g.r.e., the government running everything. and some people i know wonder,

what solution is there? even if you had a fair tax or flat tax, you've still got to have an i.r.s. and i love arthur laffer, reagan's economic advisor, he said, you don't have to have the i.r.s. do away with it. the problem with the i.r.s. is of course they're going to get arrogant because they pick who they're going to audit, just like we've seen with all these abuses, they put -- they pick what all they are going to audit, just as we've been hearing, they get so intrusive, so personal, and then they decide what your punishment is going to be. there's no other area in america, and i sure don't think the -- think the founders anticipated that the i.r.s. or any entity would exist that could be the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner all. and that's why arthur laffer says, you need to get rid of the i.r.s. and have an auditing

agency that's a fraction of the size of the i.r.s., they don't get to pick who they audit, that's done completely at random they never get to pick who they audit, and they never get to decide what their auditing -- what will be done with their auditing. it has to be passed on to justice or the collection of the taxes if they have not been paid. they never get to participate in that. and i like the way that sounds, especially the more we hear about the abuses of people that are just freedom-loving americans. so i appreciate very much my friend taking this time so we could talk about the i.r.s. and i realize that he knew when he signed up for this hour, that there would be others come and that he was risking, it's a brave thing because he's risking an audit as we go in because he knows better than anybody just how abusive the i.r.s. can get.

but i yield back to my friend, mr. flores. mr. flores: i appreciate the -- mr. speaker, i appreciate the comments of mr. gohmert and he raises an issue all americans need to be concerned about, the invasion of privacy we expect to have under the constitution. when you have an i.r.s. that's looking into your personal records. mr. speaker, i was -- i did get a letter from think i.r.s. about six weeks after i wrote my letter to the i.r.s., demanding an answer for what they were doing to the waco tea party. i think they're targeting everybody, they don't care who they target. it seems like they're on a mission to try to squelch opposition to this administration's policy. now i'd like to recognize a brand new freshman member from florida, mr. desantos from florida 6. he's going to share some stories bt what his constituents have experienced with the i.r.s. >> i thank the -- mr. desantos:

i thank the gentleman from texas. the power to tax is the power to destroy. when you have the government using that taxing power to target individual americans based on their exercise of first amendment rights, that really is the utmost seriousness in terms of the threat that that represents to constitutional government. i received a letter from one of my constituents a couple of weeks back, carol mcmanus, and she is a leader in a conservative group in northeast florida and they're basically dedicated toward educating about constitutional government, individual freedom, the rule of law, traditional american principles, you'd think that would be something that we would be applaud -- applauding, especially in this day and age. well, they had to go through this situation with the i.r.s. they submitted an application and they waited for a month, three months, six months, a

year. it took 18 months for the i.r.s. to respond to their inquiry. when the i.r.s. responded, did they approve the group as would be a matter of course particularly for groups that were recognized as representing a liberal perspective? no. they were given a list of very intrusive questions about the operation of their group. i actually saw this firsthand during the 2012 election season because i went just to shake hands with some folks one night, just to see how people were doing and all the group leaders, they were scared that i was there. because they didn't want to get hit by the i.r.s. they didn't want to do anything wrong. so what the i.r.s. was able to do, by stretching this out, by submitting all these intrusive questions, they really chilled these folks from feeling confident, being able to exercise their first amendment rights. and they did look scared of what could happen to them just

because i happened to show up. even though it's not a partisan event. i was just shaking hands, we were just talking about stuff. i appreciate the gentleman from texas organizing this hour. the frustrating thing about it is yes, you may have impropriety in any given administration but what we have now with the i.r.s., we have a lot of career bureaucrat who was their own ideological bent, people like lois berner -- lerner who take it upon themselves to target groups they think deserve targeting. the problem with that is, nobody elected lois lerner to anything. she's a nameless, feasless bureaucrat that you've just got to hope the point of view that you're trying to pursue is not one she finds objectable. and that, that lack of accountable -- accountability, not knowing whether the bureaucracy will come down on you, that's a problem with the i.r.s., it's a problem with any of these agencies, quite frankly. i think the more the americans

understand the threat posed by a runaway bureaucracy, i think the better. i'd like to see some far-reaching reforms so we're protecting taxpayers, we're protecting american citizens in the exercise of their right, and you know what? if the bureaucracy steps out of bounds, there ought to be consequences for that. the idea that somehow lois lerner is going to retire with full pay and benefits and not having been held responsible at all, even though she couldn't testify in front of the oversight committee, i think that rubs a lot of americans wrong. so i think the -- i thank the gentleman from texas for organizing this and i really appreciate the attention that you focused on this issue. so mr. speaker, i will yield back@gentleman from texas. -- back to the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: i thank the gentleman for that heart felt if today. i'd also like to thank him for his years of service to the u.s. navy and current member of the united states naval reserve.

we appreciate having people like this that serve our country and you know, it's a shame that americans who serve their country, whether they're in congress or just a member of a local tea party, are targeted. because of the fact that they are concerned about what's happening in washington. what's happening from an administration or from the nameless, faceless bureaucrats you heard about a few minutes ago. mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. mr. flores: thank you, mr. speaker. we have -- as i told you at the outset of this conversation, we have many letters that we've received from folks all over this country and i'm not going to read all of these letters but what i'm going to do is turn them in to be incorporated into the record of tonight's proceedings. amen, er is from

abortion must end now, that talks about how they were targeted. the tea party of south jersey talked about how they were targeted. you heard mr. desantos from florida talk about the first coast tea party and how they were targeted. their letter will be part of the record. even folks out in hawaii, the hawaii tea party writes in and talk about their experiences with the i.r.s. he kentucky 9/12 group has written in to talk about it. the manassas tea party next door here in virginia, has written in to talk about how long it took for them to have their application reviewed and how they were bullied and insulted. you heard mr. lankford talk about the o.k.c. tea party of patriots in action association. we'll enter their letter into the record. patriots educating concerned americans now, pecan for short, in california.

we got a letter from them. the rhone county tea party from tennessee, got a letter from them. we have a letter from the san fernando valley patriots in california that talks about the i.r.s. treatment and the abuse. actually, this one is sort of interesting because it has a poem. i'm going to read this one if it's ok with you. again, this is from the san fernando valley patriots in california. this letter starts with a poem entitled our grass roots voice by karen kenny, coordinator, san fernando valley patriots. the voices of the san fernando patriots are deferent from our voice, we are democratsing republicans, independents, but patriots all. but our voice is a whisper against the roar that is this government. we began as a tea party group in may of 2009 here in los angeles. born from the tax burdens from within the american recovery and

reinvestment act. a government too big makes each citizen small, we thought. the first amendment would offer a platform for us to speak politically. but we were wrong. our government unsheathed its sword, the i.r.s. the i.r.s. did what tirne does, threaten and control. the questionnaire sent to us were consuming but their intent to test our resolve. but liberty prefers to stand and to be heard. we held more than 85 events in two grires donations drop and costs rose. we could afford fewer speakers, rallies and handouts. in july, 2012, we withdrew our application for tax exemplet status but the i.r.s. after 20 months of delays and read tape. we must now pay nonprofit taxes in california, the minimum is $800 annually. we have little money but more people. on june 4, 2014, the ways and

means committee heard our voice. ow our voice is stronger and more here. here's their letter. on june 4, 2013, we told our story to the ways and means committee. we did not plead the fifth. we did not hide the facts. we did not lie. our voice rose against the tyranny that is the i.r.s. scandal. we told the truth of how a government too big makes each citizen small. we told the truth of abuse of power by the fist of a grinding bureaucracy. we spoke of demand and delay tactics that cut our funds and public face. the i.r.s. kept pounding and we stopped our application for tax relief but we did not stop meet, teaching and talking about the constitution. now we have fewer speakers, fewer rallies, fewer resources but our resolve is undaunted. you see, we stand firmly with the first amendment, not the fifth. god bless this nation, god bless its people, god bless our

inlerity -- lib tertirk -- our liberty. karen kenny, san fernando valley patriots. we have a letter from a group in ohio, a letter from unite in action in tennessee. we have the watumpka tea party in alabama wrote in about their treatment at the hands of an overreaching i.r.s. the liberty township tea party has written nesm richmond tea party from next door in virginia has a letter they want to -- meshes to know about. the rochester tea party patriots in minnesota. the greater phoenix tea party patriots in arizona have written in. mr. speaker, those are a handful of the letters written in this will be part of this record of tonight's proceedings. if we have -- on our website at flores.house.gov we have a timetable of when the i.r.s.

started this and what processes they went through and the lies told to the american people about what they were doing. and then we also have some testimony about when they came clean and when the i.r.s. officials started to resign. it would be fascinating for americans to be able to see that. mr. speaker, the i.r.s. is supposed to enforce our tax laws with integrity and fairness yet here we are six months later and the obama administration has done nothing more than to try to ride out the storm without taking action. loyslerner and doug shulman resigned from the i.r.s., however, they are still entitled to hi the rest of their lives living on the backs of hardworking american taxpayerers that they abused when they were with the i.r.s. mr. speaker, folks like lerner and shulman should never be allowed to get away with their bhayor like this and get on federal retirement. the i.r.s. must stop targeting certain individuals an fwroups were partisan reasons.

it is time that the administration gives congress the information that we requested over and over and over again so that the american people will know the facts and that they'll know these practices are no longer being done. americans deserve and demand transparencies from government agencies as well as compliance with law and with the constitution. my colleagues and i remain committed to finding answers and putting a stop to this injustice. mr. speaker, i'd like for every federal bureaucrat that has tried to abuse the american people to have to submit their testimony with this same language that they requested from these everyday americans that were just trying to stand up and exercise their first amendment rights. i'd like them to say, under penalties of perjury, i declare i have examined this information, including the accompanying docksyumets and to the best of my knowledge and belief the information and relevant facts relating to the requests for information and such facts are true, correct, an complete.

this is what lois lerner should have had to provide, not plead he fifth. my colleagues remain committed to finding answers. mr. speaker, i thank you for allowing us to bring this issue back to the forefront and to demand action. we reassure the american public that the i.r.s. and other federal agencies will not scrutinize individuals and groups for ideological and partisan reasons. i ask americans to pray for heir country and for our first responders. god bless america and i yield back. i ask unanimous consent to insert the letters that we received tonight into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the

chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher, for 30 minutes. mr. rohrabacher: there is a piece of legislation that will be going through the judiciary committee on wednesday that the american people need to be alerted about. it goes to the heart of our prosperity and our national security and right to the heart of the well-being of average americans. our founding fathers believed with technology, freedom and and with the profit motive, all of those things would uplift humankind and this would make america a great nation. in fact, they wrote into our constitution a guarantee, a mandate that guarantees the rights of inventors and oughtorses. the its the only place in the body of the constitution,

article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the constitution of the united states. the congress shall have the power to plow minnesota the power of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their discoveries. this leads to a general prosperity, national security and also to the decent living of average people. this is compared to the angst yites and the horror stories that the common man was living in when the constitution was written in. throughout the world, ordinary people lived in poverty and lived under the repression and in a constant state of oppression. what broke this cycle of repression and deprivation and built a great country here in

the united states and great example to the world was freedom and technology, yes, and guaranteed freedom and technology through the rule of law through our constitution. the americans worked hard to build this great country, yes, but that's not what made the difference. that's not what made us a great country of how we broke out of that cycle that mankind suffered for so long. what made the difference is that technology, multiplied the results of the hard work of our people. people have been working hard since the old times. people work hard all over the world. what the difference is that americans brought technology to bear on these problems multiplying the creation of wealth. and thus, the uplifting of ordinary people. and it was our strong patent system that ensured that technology and freedom would

work its magic. and this now, we can see we have had the strongest and the best patent system throughout our country's history and it has been heralded throughout the world. yet, today, multinational corporations some of them run by theycans, whose allegiance have, but these huge multinational corporations want to diminish the patent protection of the american people. in my 25 years, battles have been fought over and over again, often turned back sometimes through compromise. but these efforts over the last 25 years have been aimed at dramatically weakening our patent system. so, basically, the argument has been made over and over again, we need to harm nidse america's

patent system with the rest of the world. we have rights that are guaranteed. our rights to speech and prayer. we never think about harmonizing those. we want to have the strongest constitutional protections but now these big companies want to weaken the protection of intellectual property by harmonizing our law with the weaker laws in japan and europe. if they want to armonize laws, they want to strengthen their aws so the americans are protected. how does that play out and specifically how they want to change the law? well, first of all, it has been an american tradition unlike japan and in europe that it -- that basically after 18 months

in europe and japan, if someone applies for a patent after 18 months, well, that patent is published, eastbound even if that patent is not granted. givenf the application is out and that is disclosed to everybody in the world. they wanted to say after 18 months if you filed your patent, even if you haven't received your patent, they were going to publish it. talk about an invitation to steal. we beat that back, but it was a tough fight. the same people right now are ones that we are trying to change the system in the bill going through on wednesday in the judiciary committee. what else did we have to fight back? well, we believe in the united states that someone has as the constitution said for a specific

period of time. we have had 17 years that we said if someone files for a patent and granted a patent and no matter how long it takes, you are going to have 17 years where you own that new idea, that new concept. well, guess what? overseas that's not the way it is. the minute you file overseas, if it takes 20 years or let's say 15 years for you to get your patent because it is complicated and deals by the very nature with new science and new ideas, well, guess what? the clock starts ticking immediately when you file for the patent and sometimes people will have all of their patent's time eaten up by the bureaucracy which gives major corporations in europe the edge of influencing the bureaucracy and they are going to want top approve or disapprove of a new

innovation, a new piece of technology that someone is asking for a patent. thus these big corporations are able to force small inventors into deals for their creation and saying that we can fence you in and you will never be able to use it any way. we won most of these fights. the two i mentioned, trying to make sure they won't be published, a patent application that hasn't been granted, won't be published. we beat that back. we beat that back that the patent is going to be ticking right away so if someone, if it takes a long time for the patent some ssued, there was compromises. these big companies, these globalists, who have a global sense of the economy, a global

sense for freedom. a global sense of where the american people -- we aren't so unique but part of a global system. well, they keep coming back, coming back. the multinational corporations who have sought to remove these other things that were mentioned a while ago, they now have another offensive on the way. and i find myself fighting for the small inventors who are struggling to defend their patent rights and the patent rights of all americans and america's innovators. of course, we don't see these big corporations presenting an idea to congress saying, we want to lessen the patent protection of ordinary americans. instead, they always have to come up with a sinister-sounding word and hire the best p.r.

people in the world to promote this image in the public's mind. before that sinister force that we had to diminish our patent protection for, to make sure that our own invent tors could have their patent application published after 18 months or the clock ticking away so they never have a right to enforce their patent, well that in those days were called submarine pat especially and described in these sinister derogatory terms, but almost succeeded and we beat them back in an attempt to get the american people to fundamentally change our patent system which has worked so well for us and affected our standard of living for ordinary americans. there is another term being used. it is even more sinister-sounding.

i wonder what p.r. firm was paid how many hundreds of thousands of dollars and then millions of dollars to promote this sinister phrase so people would accept it. the term is patent troll. yes, there is a good sinister term. thus, we have to change the basics of our patent system that hurts the little guys' ability to protect his own intellectual property rights when it comes to his patent. these so-called patent t rmp olls are companies who represent patent holders and engaged in defending the rights, their rights as part of the constitution, intellectual property rights against the infringe meant of those patents which they own and it's their patents. we aren't talking about stealing

a patent from someone and aren't talking about a frivolous suit but someone who owns a patent that was issued to them by the patent office. those patents that they own are just as valid as perhaps all the other patents that are granted by the patent office. but these huge corporate entities, these people that would infringe on the patent rights on the little guy and say sue me. no. no. no. these people would have us believe that patent trolls, people that are defending patents are in some way doing something evil. what makes the patents of these eople who are they call patent trolls, what makes them different than the good patents that are owned by the very same multinational corporations or the same corporations that bring

similar litigation forward when their patents are being violated. the so-called patent troll is being identified as out for profit. they're out for profit, not from actually seeing technology being used or out for profit by getting involved in something that he or she did not invent. surprise, surprise. we've got lawyers who are engaged in litigation only for the fact that they are going to make some money out of the litigation. yes, we have frivolous lawsuits and we should do what we can to stop them, but that doesn't mean you change the fundamental rights of those people whose rights are being violated. if the small inventor doesn't enforce resources to his or her patent, an individual or company can buy those rights like they can buy some land from

someone who didn't have the resources to plant it or to commercially try to sell it or they could create a partnership. the small inventor can go into a or to sell his patent rights to someone else. basically, if they can't enforce their rights because a big company is infringing upon them. they need help. up until now they have been legally entitle the to get it. i have consulted with individuals and groups they have reafffirmed that the legislation being proposed in the judiciary committee further disadvantages the little guy against the deep-pocketted, multinational corporations. what they do now is they don't do patent searches when they are utilizing new technology to upgrade the machines and equipment that they own. they don't do patent searches so

they can just say they didn't know. . in the past they have taken great pains not to step on somebody's toes, now they have intentionally not educated themselves on the rights of these individuals, and say they say sue me in court, knowing that these guys are little guys who can't sue them. the little guys in our country need help of lawyers who sometimes have to work on contingency and are many times working on a profit motive to help the lit guile against the big guy who has infringed on their rights. targeting s guise of the so-called patent trolls, meaning this person or company was contracted, with the inventor, to see that his or her patent rights are protected, these guys are supposedly

horrible. how horrible it is making a business out of helping small inventors or just seeing that an enventor who has not had the ability to commercialize and to enforce his patents, that instead what we've got is people who are out to help that person now enforce the rights that he has under our constitution, just the same if someone decided not to farm their land if you weren't -- if you own a piece of land and decided not to farm it and want to turn it into a bird sanctuary, that is your right as long as you own that land and our constitution says the people who envent some new ideas have 17 years of ownership, property ownership, on their idea. now they're trying to stop that. trying to change that. proponents of this legislation that will go through the judiciary committee on wednesday are covering up the fact that what we're dealing here is someone who has stolen someone

else's patent rights and now they want to change the system so they can get away with that theft. that is the primary purpose behind this legislation. they'll say, oh, we just don't want these big companies, these multinationals, to be taken advantage of by someone who owns a patent, a lawful patent, and now is trying to enforce it after not having enforced it for a long period of time. well, i would hope that all people will try their best to getter that patent on the market and do good things with these new technologies. in fact, 95% of the people i know who are enventors struggler that hardest to fwt their patents sold and into the commercial market and being put to use because they know other inventions are coming along that will take their place. so this is a very small issue if it's one at all. but the fact is the market is coping with this, is encouraging people who own patents to put

them in play. let them -- let the marketplace, let our companies utilize those patents, they'll make a profit out of it. tonight i draw attention of the american people and my colleagues to h.r. 3309, the innovation act, they call it this time, introduced by chairman goodlatte, with 14 bipartisan co-sponsors. this bill is scheduled, as i said, this bill is scheduled to be marketed up in the house judiciary committee this week even though the committee has only held one hearing on this bill since the introduction of the bill and was only -- and that hearing was only 10 legislative days ago. there are major other forces besides these multinational corporations that are at play here. whether we're talking about hospitals and doctors or whether we're talking about other groups

in our society like union -- like universities and others who own patents, there are a lot of people who will lose this if -- if this goes through and they need time to communicate with their representatives. enstead, they're ramrodding this through quickly. the witnesses at the hearing they did have included former patent director campos who made it clear we should move slowly and with great care in making changes to patent law, especially in light of the fact that no one understands the implications of the last patent law they passed in the last congress called the americans invent act, the a.i.a. and that was congress' last patent bill and -- which is right now in the process of being implemented and interpreted by the patent office and by the courts. so we haven't even digested the last bite congress has taken out of the patent law apple and now they want to gobble down a few

more bites and in and of itself, this legislation is too broad, its implications are too unclear and itsesques are unknowable. that's what's going to happen. they're going to put that billion through the process starting on wednesday at the judiciary committee. that's what witnesses and other experts have indicated to us. the conclusion -- move forward with caution. but that is not what is happening. congress is being railroaded to pass this legislation on top of the last legislation. what's going on here? the congressional ramrodding exemplifies the battle to diminish america's patent system as it's been going on for 25 years. the same globalist, multinational corporations who may or may not have any interest in the american people at heart. according to the sponsors of h.r. 3309, it is an attempt to combat the problem of patent

trolls. oh, my fwosh, be afraid of patent trolls and weaken the rights of patent holders. even though a study mandated by congress in the last patent bill that passed just a couple of hasn't , that study even been consulted an been made part of this debate. that study showed that this problem, supposedly, that we have, this patent troll thing that's come up now, is not really a major driver of lawsuits. that's a study that was commissioned by the last patent bill as decided -- has decided it is not, not a major driver of lawsuits and has not caused a surge of new lawsuits. most of the provisions in the legislation that they will pass through the committee this week will make it much more complicated, much more costly,

much more challenging, to bring a lawsuit for patent infringement rather than making it simpler, cheaper, and easier to defend against baseless accusations of infringement. we're being told that these people who are leading the trolls have some sort of unjustified claim, that these are false patents. these things shouldn't be enforced. but they haven't done that they haven't aimed at trying to -- what they are doing is preventing people who have regular claims, people who have legitimate claims, from seeking damages from big companies, big guys, who intentionally are infringing on them. we are going to have to raise the bar for the enventor to breng a lawsuit to defend his or her rights. we're manging it more difficult for the enventor rather than easier for these big companies to brush away frivolous lawsuits, we instead are making

it harder on inventors to defend their legitimate property rights lowering the bar to allow small businesses to defend itself against frivolous lawsuits, we are basically raising this e-- raising the bar when it comes to inventors to protect their rights. in addition, under the claim of technical correction, this legislation proposes to remove the patent system's only independent judicial process. that's in section 45 of title 35. if this passes, inventors who are not satisfied that the patent office has actually treated them farely, that the bureaucracy has worked within the law, that they have not been cheated, that there's not some co-lution going on, that the fact is, there will be no recourse to an inventor who feels that he has been wronged by our own bureaucracy. although this safeguard that we

have had that prevents the bureaucracy from doing things that are illegal or out of procedure or violating someone's rights, those safeguards of having a judicial review have been part of our american law system since 1836. it isn't some antiquated possess. it is independent judicial review and last year, the supreme court of the united states in coppo vs. hyatt reaffirmed the importance of this provision. now the patent office has been requested that judicial review be done away with because of its -- because it is so burdensome to have a judicial review in case some people within our bureaucracy are acting illegally or incompetently. we can't allow that because it's too burdensome for the bureaucracy to defend their actions in a courtroom even though this happens on very rare

occasions. very rare okeagses because we have that recourse. take away that recourse and that -- those problems will be a lot more. they will grow because there will be nothing ostop them from wrong action in the bureaucracy. the patent office wants to strip away the rights of americans because it's inconvenient to their bureaucracy. the legislation is consistent with the decades-long battle being waged on infeint inventors by multinational corporations. might i ask ther -- ask the chair how much time i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has four minutes left. mr. rohrabacher: the innovation act will create more paperwork when the enventor files for an infringement claim, increasing

their costs to defend their rights and the potential for having the case dismissed oen a technicality is greater. they will switch to a loser pay system. so the little guy could have to pay, some huge corporation with lawyers on their payroll, that lit guile has to realize he's going to pay enormous costs where the big corporation normally has to pay the legal fees if you have loser pay, that's what this is -- that provision is all about this ebig corporation won't have to pay for the little guy. the little guy will have to pay huge expenses and thus, what is it? he's detered from protecting his own rights. so that's too -- let's just say, loser pays is a loser for the little guy. and a big winner for the big guy. this is so broad that people can be made part of an -- they are expanding now who will have to pay with the loser pays.

this bill actually brings in people who will now be expected to pay the expenses of these big corporations who are infringing if that guy loses, if the little guy loses, anybody who has even helped the little guy will be brought in and nay will be liable for the loser pay provisions. what does that mean? little guys will never be eable to get outside help from people to invest in their suit, like mylow farnsworth, inventor of the picture tube, had to get people to help him because r.c.a. was ripping him off and he had people invest to help with legal fees. this bill would eliminate that by making those people liable. section four would create now requirements that a patent holder must file once a claim of infringement by providing information about all parties

when he files for an infringement, he has to say all the parties giving information of all the parties including those who may have invested in his suit thus we have a blanket, new we have -- now we have people, they are, posed to all sorts of harassment and just for what? for backing up someone's right to -- saying i will give you some money to defend your right. and there is no reason for us to have this type of exposure cha has never been reared before and this will again put a great pressure on people not to get involved, to help those people whose patents are being infringed upon. now, we also, of course, have large provisions in here that, for example, increase -- decrease the number of -- shall say increase the amount of time that is necessary -- i'm

going to get this right. there's a provision in the bill that actually limits the amount of time that -- the amount of things that can be required on discovery, which means the little guy will have to have many motions of discovery which every motion will cost him money, rather than having one motion. these things are very -- i know, very complicated, and very hard to understand for the american people but what they add up to, they have been thought out, very thought out, very well, because the big companies know how to beat the little guys down and that's what this bill is all about. if we were trying to instead -- to try to eliminate frivolous lawsuits which we should, there would be a whole different approach to this. this would be enabling those large companies to defeat frivolous lawsuits. instead what we have going through our judiciary committee is a bill that makes it harder for those people who are the

innovators and inventors to defend their intellectual property rights. i would ask that my fellow colleagues join me in opposing this bill and i would ask the american people to pay attention to what is going on and making sure that this attempt to, again, to diminish the patent rights of the american people is defeated and that again, that the rights of our people to live in prosperity and to have national security based on our great innovation is protected from multinational corporations who are motivated just simply by greed and in the by benefit of the people of the united states. i now would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. rohrabacher: i move that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is aagreed

biography. he preyed on some of the women who work with them and made advances to the wives of friends and reporters, and acted as a kind of fermented creditor when his wife is not present. would you talk about how they're reporting relationship has changed, you said nothing is new under the sun. we have prior examples of prior first ladies who doubt with this but times are changing. >> i was not aware of this in

terms of his views. no one would talk about it, certainly not the moms. what has happened in terms of reporting is -- part of that has -- it increases the numbers of women in the ranks of reporters because there is a sense that the personal is political and i think that where you saw them -- the huge shift was in 1984 with gary hart. before that there was a sense of what happened on the trail. and that did change with the increased number of women on the bus. >> back to phone calls. you?r: how are

has occurred to me about labored and all the first ladies, how big of a staff do they tend to have in the east wing, do they have their own the socialrs, secretary, how big of a staff is there generally that the first lady has at her disposal? >> thank you for asking that. in many ways labor johnson created the framework. office, sheent into hired liz carpenter as a secretary and chief of staff. and beth able as social secretary. they really took over the east wing and hired others obviously to help. that was the first time they had -- there had been a press secretary chief of staff. i tried to find out the number and i was told by her office that it very has not only did

she hire a large, competent staff herself, but she also brought in on loan people from other departments. for example for the beautification campaign she brought in people from the secretary of interior's office so it was not on her budget. truly hard to come up with a number. i was somewhere in the 20's. this cadre of clinical women who worked with many of these things especially on head start, for instance when she got very engaged in creating head start. my mother was very engaged with her as were several of the other political wives so she had a lot very highly very -- trained, smart volunteers as well. >> how long was it before the office of first lady was established in how was that done? --that is different mark that is difficult to answer.

back at the beginning it was mostly relatives or friends. the sister-in-law did volunteer document. is hard to the roseville women always had their social secretary's and pack those on. packed thoses and on. been apenter had reporter since 1942, when lady bird met her. their friendship went back so she chose people and they stayed with her the entire time in the white house. and after. as mrs. johnson became in demand on these issues, what they called beautification,

people wanted her everywhere. she had to create essentially an office of surrogate. which was such a funny notion because we think of the first lady as the surrogate for the president. we have office -- surrogates for the surrogate. on.: you are caller: i am pleased you are doing this series. the first ladies are getting their due. i wanted to mention earlier you asked if mrs. johnson ever had former first ladies at the white house. the ranch,had to at mrs. carter and mrs. ford. i believe it was probably in the late 1980's. and also i wanted to mention that mrs. johnson's centennial -- her earth day was last december 22, 2012.

and in honor of that the post office issued a commemorative stamp. mrs. johnson was the fifth first lady to have a stamp. the others were martha washington and dolly madison and abigail adams and mrs. roosevelt. host: the producer tells me you have a connection with her. wht is -- what is it you would like people watching this program to know about mrs. johnson? caller: oh, my. are doing atty terrific job, thank you. she was very warm. unflappable. laugh, itdelicious was a hearty belly laugh. she was such a good role model

for all of us who knew her and loved her. when you work for mrs. johnson -- for the president, too, all -- although i did not know the president. you became part of the family. friend and i loved her. she loved me, too. it was a privilege working for her and knowing her and her family. they have certainly followed in her footsteps and they are terrific. it has been an honor. at mrs. johnson's funeral, all the staff no matter how old they were and how far away they were came, including some secret service men who had retired long before but who loved her so much that they made the huge effort to get there. host: is there anything in the

diary that would shock us today? she would not put in. marvin,t's go to watching us on the air. caller: i was at the texas delegation at the democratic convention. jfk said -- you were such a great senate majority leader you should stay there. good lady bird johnson want lbj to -- did lady bird johnson want lbj to accept the nomination and would have lbj have been as successful in his various jobs without the support of lady bird johnson? we can start with the

second one first. that.she would say an enormous heart of her -- his success -- part of his success. others did not want him to take the second spot on the ticket. they considered john kennedy anior member of the senate -- junior member of the senate and he should wait his turn. no one could have campaigned harder than she did. sam rayburn had to be convinced. my father went to him and said do you want richard nixon to win? there you are. host: how did she choose her cause, beautification? was a heartfelt

thing. she did not choose the project. she did not change the curtains that needed changing because she said the next family might not like it and she acted as though that would be the last year in the white house. so bigyndon johnson won in 1964, she sent out requests for advice on what she should do and the word came back she, like other first ladies, should do something about washington. the beautiful -- beautification of washington came out of that but it became clear that her the beautification people had split and some wanted to go national and that is the emphasis on national parks, highway beautification, mary lasker who was part of that move, said these highways are terrible. she was thinking of the new jersey turn pike. -- althoughns signs, it could be better.

that was highway beautification, getting the junkyards removed or covered up with fences and the washington park. even the washington part split into two. one group wanted to plant tulips, the dog would set. people wanted to polish the statues and make it more beautiful for tourists and others who wanted to go into the poor neighborhoods where sports fields, recreation facilities were not there and do something for those in regards. the important about her is she incorporated the mall. -- them all. >> she beat the united states congress and there was no hiding behind, you know, the man, and she did not attend that she was not doing it. she was up their lobbying and it was very tough. nicey, thenicey- beautification.

the billboard lobby was against any of this. they were people as there are ways are in these situations, people pushing harder saying she was not doing enough. there needed to be a much bigger emphasis on cleaning everything up and people saying you're going too far. we face many problems together,

peace is one, and economic prosperity is another. we have reached good and workable solutions in the past. and it takes men in washington who care about the people of the south and it takes citizens here at home with a vision of the future. today many parts of the south present one of the proudest pictures of progress. we draw on the past for our strength. but we dare not land to turn back. >> she didn't want people to

think they want their vote but many people didn't like the civil rights bill, for instance. she hoped that she could appeal to them to recognize that that was the time that was coming and change had to be made and we were moving forward and they were also a lot of african-american citizens who were there and we wanted to reassure them.

>> those political skills applied to the campaign, how do they stand her in good stead? cokie mentioned how controversial this was. but was it really a tough job selling this to the congress. and was it a difficult job? >> the highway -- the billboard lobby was very strong. i think we forget how strong it was. and i think maybe now the judgment is that she tried to do too much on that. that that was really very hard. but she did. >> washington -- people don't realize this beautiful city we live in is much, much, much more

beautiful because of her and she was a wonderful philanthropist. but this -- this profusion of flowers and trees and the -- the fact that you just come into the city and are greeted by just total beauty is a result of her having been here. >> and this was a compliment to lyndon johnson's great society programs or was it truly a great campaign? >> it was both. we associate it -- that's something we required almost of every first lady since her -- what will be your project? i think michelle obama was asked that before the nomination. so it was a little bit of both. it was a compliment to the great society and it was also uniquely hers. >> but the -- the first ladies who have succeeded her, particularly those michelle obama and laura bush, had said -- have quoted her that she has said, you know, i realized -- and i think that's

part of what she feels saying. it took her a while. she had to have that big landslide. she was no longer the heir to the job. but she said, i realized, i had a pulpit and i could use it and i could use it to do good. and she determined that she was going to do that. and they have taken those words and followed them very consciously quoting her. >> roslyn carter also has made a point. >> and remember she continued that work after the beautify occasion if you want to use that terrible term that she hated also. but she continued it after she left the white house, i think until 1990 which is whatever it is, 22 years after leaving the white house, she continued to give that highway beautify occasion award out of her own pocket to highway workers in texas who had done most to beautify the highways of texas. so i'm always interested in which first ladies continued

their projects afterwards and which one forgets they ever did that. >> here are some of the key accomplishments and challenges of it was jobs in the administration, including the passage of the education bill of the establishment of the public broadcasting, the establishment of medicare and medicaid. the signing of the civil rights act which had the kennedy administration legislation. the warren commission report with the findings on the johnson -- excuse me, the kennedy assassination. the establishment of the outer space treaty which people say today still is the framework for how international community treated outer space. and, of course, the vietnam war. and the voting rights act of 1965, which i think is probably the most important civil rights piece of legislation. because it's -- it made it clear that people could get the vote and then work to get themselves in a better situation. >> the civil rights bill of 1964, you're quite correct, of

course, is it started under president kennedy. but i don't think there's anyway on earth present kennedy could have gotten that bill through congress. it took lyndon johnson and his great skills as a former majority leader and an incredible arm twister to get that bill through. and the tapes certainly show it. >> and each of these programs we've talked about how the first lady -- but the -- the first couple have used the white house as a base for their lobbying as it were, the relationships in washington. how do the johnsons use the white house? >> they used it very differently than the kennedies. i think we had -- there was a month of mourning, of course, of course after the assassination. so there was no entertaining. so by early january of 1964, they were having their two or three evenings a week getting congressmen and their spouses in there in small group ms. they could have done it in one big reception and gotten some

footage. but they did it a dozen at a time and got much more -- got much closer to the congressman. also, i was struck by the fact that she used the white house many of the congressmen's wives had never been upstairs. and certainly the kennedys didn't open the second floor. but she had them and the women reporters up there, i think january 8. she had only live in the white house about a month. and she had women reporters going through the family bathrooms and looking at the living quarters. it was completely different from jaclyn kennedy's attitude that the upstairs was offlimits. they were -- >> don't overestimate the power of that. because people, they feel they're in response to them and they've gotten something special, they're likely to be nicer to you. >> i read that, women reporters were coming in to their own during this time period. and mrs. johnson, by having lots of news to cover, helped them with their careers.

>> yes, i'm sure they appreciated her being so open. i was struck by the fact that she had -- when she had the women reporters do the upstairs quarters, she said i felt good about it. i've always been open about my life. she said i think i'm pleased to share most aspects of that with the reporters. but she said one thing she'd do next time is put away the books she was reading because i think a week later, an article appeared with what may have been a coincidence, but listing the books that mrs. johnson liked. so even she, i guess, would have put it -- >> it's the bible up there. mrs. johnson fired mrs. kennedy's french chef. but she continued mrs. kennedy's restoration at the white house. but she insisted that all of the acquisitions be american made. which is a bit different than jaclyn kennedy's approach to the white house. she said i like the finer things, no matter where they come from.

>> she did not. she got it made in the u.s. with a wild flower theme. so she was her own woman. also in the social side, they had the first white house wedding in 53 years. >> right. >> yeah. lucy's wedding. and then lyndon. so they had -- both of their daughters were married in the white house. and, of course, that was very joyous thing to have. because by this time, we were getting into the vietnam war and into the -- into some of the real nastiness. and to have the wedding was a really nice moment of -- of -- >> sitting back and saying this is a family. >> who did the daughters marry? >> lucy married in august of '66, right? she married pat nugent in a catholic ceremony, not in the white house. linda is the first white house wedding of a president's daughter, i believe, since the

wilson daughter and it will be 1914. so this -- and she married -- he had been a military aide, charles robb. >> what was mrs. johnson's role. and was she very much involved in the planning of all of these things? >> oh, yes. i mean everything became political, whether or not it was a union label and lucy's gown. her diary has a lot about what an ordeal that was for her. i think the day -- >> had to make two dresses? is that right? >> yes. >> and the day after lucy's wedding, i know she fled to the virginia farm when she sometimes went when she didn't want to see anybody. and after linda's wedding, the president fled. i think they both found it stressful. >> barbara is watching us in san francisco, hi, barbara, you're on. >> yes, good evening. i want to say i love your program. but the question i have is what are lucy and linda doing right

now and how many children do they have each? thank you very much. >> lynda is here in the virginia suburbs of washington. her husband, jack rod, was governor of virginia and the senator from virginia. and lynda has been very, very active in all kinds of causes where she's been very effective. and she was -- she was the first lady of virginia. and has been a political wife herself. lucy was married to patrick nugent. they divorced. but i think she had four children. and now is married to ann dirkman and he had children too. so lucy's christmas cards have amazing kids in them. adorable. >> grandchildren, seven all together. >> and lynda now has three grandchildren. >> and ian has a connection with the johnson family? he feels -- >> he's a part of the business in texas. >> wanting to know, i think you

alluded to this, what was lady bird's most challenging time in the white house? was it the vietnam years? >> i think so. the vietnam years were hard on everybody. they were hard on the whole country. but we also were going to the huge generational fight. and i think that having people outside of the white house screaming hey, hey, lbj, how many kids did you kill today. could you imagine? and this is -- this is somebody that you know, wants to do the right thing by the country. and it's a horrible thing to have. >> she kept going out and giving speeches in spite of those. the yale -- she said, i don't want to shut myself off. which would have been easy to do. >> in 1999, lady bird johnson gave an interview to c-span and she spoke about vietnam. >> where's vietnam going to fit in? >> along the way which he couldn't solve, couldn't escape.

couldn't shake off. >> when did you see him at his lowest? >> during those days, i think when the bags began to come on. by that, i mean -- >> the -- >> they would come in at night on freight trains and i don't know if it was planning or happen stance, but many times, i would be on my way back to a trip from new york or somewhere, and at the station as i would get off, i would see the freight trains and those bags would be -- were being unloaded and put on to -- i don't know what kind of vehicle. and that -- i knew what he was

doing. and i knew that i couldn't help him. >> did you try to help in any way? >> yes, yes, of course. >> what did you do? >> during this, i think a lot of those people understand it. and there really isn't much you can do in a situation like that. >> public sentiment against the war mounted, can you walk us through the president's ultimate decision not to seek re-election and lady bird's role in that was. >> she said and there's other evidence to support this that she -- the diary in 1964, i know when the time to leave will be. it the exactly. she picked in march of 1968. she was such an authentic person. i don't think she dreamed it up

later. as 1967 wound on, there was a meeting in september of '67 at the ranch. she talks about being called in with the top advisors. she said i don't want another campaign. i don't want to ask people one more time to help out. but it was hard for lyndon johnson to walk away from the presidency, i think. and i believe there was a sentence written that he would include in the state of the union and he then forgot it or couldn't find it in his pocket or something. i think she very much wanted him not to run in march of '68. he found it difficult. >> she was worried about his health. what we haven't talked about is back in 1955, which is really a massive heart attack. and he was -- he was quite affected by it. and the whole family was affected by it. and so i think that that was something that they always had hovering over them. and she had been very protective of his health and of his diet as

best she could be. it was something always on her mind. in fact, he did die in january of 1972. >> so she had four years after the white house. >> 73. >> 73. >> right. >> four days beyond the -- what would have been another -- >> yeah. >> he had a serious -- he couldn't be president. he had a serious heart condition. another heart attack. >> and the tumult continued in '68 after the announcement was made with the martin luther king assassination. and the robert kennedy assassination. and how did johnson's whole -- this all together knowing they would be leaving? >> it was a terrible time. 1968 was a year that, you know, here we are in the week of the 50th anniversary of the 1963 assassination. that was the beginning of

america's loss of innocence in a way. we had no notion that what was going to happen after that happened. just trialing to keep the country together and trying to keep it in some sense of not falling into despair something that all of the political leaders had to do. and the president tried. but it was very hard for him. because he was seen as the symbol of the problem by so many of the people. >> lyndon johnson lived only four more years after he left office. lady bird living 38 more years, one of the more active ones. how they worked there and prepared the library for the recording of the johnson administration's history. >> we're in the private office of mrs. lyndon johnson at the lbj library, i was her social secretary from 1976 to 990. a typical day began with her coming in in the morning at

9:00. she would come in toting a straw bag in each hand filled with some of the things that you see on her desk that she had taken home for signing or speech writing or event planning, whatever she was working on. and she would say that she came in the office, she felt like a little burrow. because she had a small satchel in each hand like saddle bags. she'd come in, get to work. her desk was always very orderly. she had her calendar that she worked in, her day book. she kept files on her desk, files she was working on, trips she was taking. she was on the board of one of the bank, national geographic, smithsonian. she would keep in large envelopes on her sofa with either the title or the dates on this emso she could pick them up, work on them, and close everything back in them. as she worked on her desk with letters that she was processing of things, when she completed things, she would put them on the floor. she sat at the office most of

the day, making phone calls or working on projects that she loved so much. she loved this office because she could look out at her alma mater and then to the city she loved so much. she would stay here all day and that was pretty much monday through friday. when we were having guests a the ranch, she would go out a few days early and stay in the guest rooms to check on the water and then the lights, the el electricity to make sure that everything was work right, the tvs in the different rooms. we'd make a stop on the way out to the ranch to the store to pick up magazines that were specific, whoever was coming to the ranch for the weekend. very thoughtful, meticulous, and gracious out there. we had three office staff at the time. we had a person who handled her calendar. we had a person who came from the white house as a press

secretary who helped her work on speeches. then i was in the office. so that was usually occupied by one of us a good part of the day. as we rotated doing projects she was working on. by friday afternoon, she was ready to leave and go to the ranch, which she really called home. 3:30 in the afternoon, she would say, do i have anything else to do? and if the answer was no, she'd say tell the secret service i'm ready to go. she'd get up, we'd pack up those little saddle bags and she'd take off and head out to the ranch for the weekend. back here on monday morning, normally. i was so fortunate to be here and learn so much from her. in the way she did things, in the way she entertained. and i liked the way she entertained. that's one reason we did so well together. i really loved her sense of making people feel at home. she was so, so good at it.

>> being guest specific. so thoughtful. and when i got married, they were in the white house when i got married. and she sent out to the house beautiful which they had since a picture, a print of the capitol seen from the white house in the 19th century. it was just so perfect. because the capitol is the building that i grew up in. and the rear view of them. >> so we've learned from you and from this tape that she continued to be a very active first lady, post first lady. and her -- into her very late years. >> into the 1990s, the macular degeneration in the '90s, she had to stop reading and that's when she stopped giving speeches, i was told, because she couldn't see the notes well enough. but she certainly until the '90s, she was very active.

and then we were talking earlier about how even after the stroke, she continued to see people just so valiantly going out to restaurants and even though she couldn't voice her reaction, she laughed and made people feel that she really appreciated them. >> and she was very active at the library. and very interested in the work and proud of the work of the library. i was there at least three times in the -- in this century. the 21st century. and she was always there. >> she was so important in the building of the library. she looked at the smallest detail, how to tack certain things in the wall. she had herself raised in a crane to see what she could see what the view was from the office, the top floor. where it would be located. she had travelled to the fdr library and thought the hometown might not be the best place. she wanted it at the university. >> karen in cleveland, hi,

karen. >> hi, good evening. i had two questions. one i was wondering about how mrs. johnson thought about her daughter, lucy, getting married at such a young age. the second question is her involvement in the work of the johnson school of government in the university of texas after her husband's death. >> thank you. >> her work at texas was very much part of if work at the library. it was all a piece. and she was very interested in that work. and that's a great place. it's a wonderful school. you know, she was private about her views about her daughter getting married young. but obviously it was something worrisome. but then once we see she made up her mind, her parents embraced it and embraced her husband. >> in her post white house years, her work for conservation and beautify occasion was recognized with the presidential medal of freedom in 1977 and the congressional gold medal in 1988. also the national wild flower

center was created as a result of her work. where was that create? >> in austin. when she started it, it was the national wild flower center. it was at her 70th birthday. it's since moved. it's still in aus tip. it's quite an operation answering questions all over the world about what species will grow where and showing people model gardens. she continued to visit that right up until she feels in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank, i think. she knew the people who worked there. she continued to be active in that. >> as our time about lady bird johnson comes to an end, we're going to return to the ranch in texas one last time. >> this is mrs. johnson's private bedroom part of the 1967 remodelling. she specified to the designers she wanted it to be her forever room. she specified certain elements she wanted, a fireplace, east-facing windows, and a large bookcase to display so many

momentos and keepsakes she gathered through the years, the birds, the china, and cameras. lyndon johnson gave mrs. johnson a camera for a wedding gift. she became quite a photo journalist. an 8 millimeter camera to capture home movies. we have hours and hours of home movies, as well as the recorder here where mrs. johnson every night at the white house would record her daily observations. this became the basis for the book, "a white house diary", which is a very insightful chronicling of the tumultuous years of the 1960s. she lived for 34 years after her husband's desk. she loved to sit here at this desk to keep up with her correspondence and all of the activities of the very active former first lady. also, in this space, we have mrs. johnson's closet with all of the clothing -- her formal wear, the ranch clothing with

the boots and the hats, a lot of her colorful outfits and her shoes. one of my favorites, the straw hats with the bluebonnets painted on top. and her private bathroom. it's reflective with the importance of family with all of the photographs of those who mattered so much to her and to her grandchildren and great grandchildren, she was known as nini, a very, very special person in their lives. lady bird johnson had a great extensive history. in her years in washington, she would be a tour guide for texans who went to the nation's capitol. i had the fortune to meet lady bird johnson. i was impressed she wanted to see how the truman story was going to be interpreted knowing that one day her story would be told here at the lbj ranch. >> after mrs. johnson's death in 2007, the ranch was given to the national park service and it's

available for you to visit if you happen to be in the texas hill country. you get a sense of the john sso life. she died at the age of 84. how did the country respond to her death. >> outpouring of love. >> it was. and everybody showed up. former presidents and first ladies. and as i say -- and congress and all of the official people that you would expect to be there were there. but also, this wonderful response of her -- her staff and the secret servicemen. seeing them come in was really quite something. but i think also the point that we have the park service and making the sense of history is something that we can really enjoy so much. betty made the point several times. all of this is available to us. all we have to do is go to our computers and mrs. johnson has made it possible for us to see

their home movies, read their love letters. most important from my perspective, hear those johnson tapes. she allowed those tapes to be open to the public without knowing what was on them, which is very gutsy. we have learned ane nowhere mouse amount of american politics and american history from listening to those tapes. >> where is she and the president buried? >> down the road from the ranch house. in the family cemetery. >> not at the library. but they chose to be out in the country side. the country they loved so well. >> there's the picture of the family cemetery where two siblings, i believe, mother and father are there. you can walk from the ranch to the cemetery to the birthplace to the school in ten minutes, i don't know. very short time. >> as we close here, i have a question for both of you, what should her legacy be seen among first ladies? >> she was an outstanding first

lady who really wrote the book for modern first ladies, what they needed to do to be noncontroversial and yet contribute to a spouse's legacy. and it will work -- it's for a man too, you know? >> blue skies. >> but she understood a megaphone and she could use it for good and she did that and had all of her successors did the same. >> as we close here, our thanks to the colleagues to the white house historical society for their assistance. thanks for being with us once

congressman, i was outside the iron gates. i never imagined that one day i would live on the other side of

that fence. i had the distinct feeling that this house belonged in part to me. i guess that's the feeling that everybody who visits here says, just like those who come here each year, i was impressed with the first floor and the sense of history. what a passer-by doesn't always realize is there are two sides to the white house. the official side in the public eye and the private side that the public rarely sees. the living quarters for the president and his family. this is our living room. actually, it's the end of a long hall.

it's the center and cross roads of all family activities. an intimate place, and yet, busy. and it belongs to all of the family. psychologically, you krosch that threshold, you feel you're at home. you're inside your own house. you slip on a robe and slippers and curl up with a good book. you have all of the climactic occasionings. taking a moment following the state of the union message, another major address to the nation. on those nights, this room had been filled. it has the same electricity as a broadway opening. after the performance, you're anxious to hear the reviews. although we've had some thrilling successes and high moments of pride, there were some chilly moments too.

but happy or painful, it's a public reaction at sitting with the presidency and this is where the family shares the experience. this is also a listening post for the tone of the day. we have more engagements in the evening. i come in here with some of my work that isn't so demanding and wait for lyndon to come home from his work. you can see his office from here. the lights will be on until 8:00. maybe 9:00 or 10:00. sometimes he doesn't come home for dinner until after midnight. it's not very far for a man to commute, but in terms of his responsibility, there's a great distance from here to there. i recall lyndon bringing in the latest acquisition from an old book collection and lucy emerged

from the kitchen with a pan of brownies she made. and knowing the lyndon was down there a few yards away. but the light sound of the cabinet and the television van, perhaps it's a crisis of the gulf or the middle east of june of '67. but sooner or later, the lights would go out. sooner or later, i would hear a meager voice call out, where's bird? then i know he's home, really home, like any american home, this room has its personal touches. the book shelves that reflect the individual interests of the family, old and treasured dreams, one of the things that i'm proud to be as a reminder of

our time here is the decision to the white house collection of it i love it. this is the acquisition to the permanent collection. african wife gypsy girl. the first painting acquired in our stay at the white house was -- i saved my favorite, for last. love the mother and her children. look at that little girl? is she wondering what the small child is going to mean to her life? it's such a touching painting. the family shared them in a personal and intimate moment. in the heart of the house,

literally at home. in the room at the family quarters of the white house has a special personality. a distinctive feel. here, this has a dark green look. its ornate decor reflects it opulence of the victorian period. right after the civil war, this became the cabinet room for president andrew johnson. but it was president grant who introduced this table that so many succeeding presidents used to conduct the nation's business until 1902. that was in the country outgrew the second floor. president theodore roosevelt who

had six children and was not tradition bound moved the west wing presidential offices separating once and for all the family quarters from the day-to-day work of the chief executive. many objects bring to mind earlier presidents. the tall chairs of andrew jackson. this lamp presented to grover cleveland. and this wastebasket of president grant's, guaranteed to attract the young boys who visited. the chandelier has an interesting story behind it. it was designed for the east room in president grant's time. but it soon passed room-to-room until it finally wound up gracing theodore roosevelt's new office, every time the door opened, it tinkled, distracting him greatly. he ordered it to be sent to the

capitol and he supposedly said, put it in the vice president's office and it will keep him awake. and there it remained until my husband became vice president in 196 196 1961. he was instrumental in returning it to the white house where it hangs today. this room has seen many treaty signings. in our time, i've witnessed two treaties here, involving the geographic extremes of our country. the first, the summer home of franklin delano roosevelt and between canada and the united states. behind this table, prime minister persson of canada and my husband was seated, flanked by their delegations. i remember james roosevelt and the president's personal secretary. it was a thrilling result back

to the past. then the heart of the country to the southernmost. in october of '67, the treaty was signed here, returning to mexico a small strip of land long in dispute between our countries. what a feeling of goodwill there was that day. the texas congressmen from the worder districts were here, the representatives from mexico, everyone was saying, i felt, saying it's done at last. i can recall other writings at this table. all have gone down in history. i was showing my guests, rooms on the second floor. we entered the treaty room. as i began my recital, i saw on the table a tattered notebook and chewed pencils, high school algebra and a latin book. it was evidence that linda and lucy had discovered what i too would soon learn -- that this

room is mighty good for getting work done. almost from the beginning, i've used this room to work on projects close to my heart. it's a good place to gather your thoughts and get it moving. most of the beautify occasion planning was done right here. right here on president grant's table with the outside world with its old french telephones made back in the 1890s. then, i know that one day when i walk to the finished lyndon b. johnson library at the university of texas, this room will come to mind. for almost ten years, our various library committees have met here, chancellor and regents, architects, historians, and all matter of design people.

here we'll watch the library grow. from just a germ of an idea to a living repository of history. and so, it started out as a working environment by a succession of presidents improvise the very important function for 21st century first ladies with a variety of projects. it is a hefry room, but like any room in the white house, it's having the entire family together for a joy and also relative. lyndon's hours vary with his work and the fwirls are just as unpredictable. once in a while, everyone is

dining room.

>> parting gift might be an in resident highchair. wouldn't that be cute, mama? highchair. your very own highchair forever. what kind would you like? >> yes, ma'am. >> i find out exactly how much -- the -- the other one was. two grandmother highchairs and one playpen to take up residence at the ranch. >> i think we'll be two in highchair at the same time. lyndon will still be in the

junior chair if not a highchair. >> here's the tradeoff. >> -- not using one of my chairs -- >> mother -- >> going to have to go. >> bye, daddy. >> i bet you think he's going. >> oh, he wants to go. oh! >> he really does love him. >> he does, he knows he loves him. >> uh-oh! . >> the yellow oval room is the

loveliest room in all of the white house. while our living room is homey and cozy, this room is formal and elegant. yet, there is life here. . it is the one room in the white house that's almost ceremony but a symbol for family life. it symbolizes in a way the president's family plays while living here. the personal life and the official duties are always closely related. president franklin roosevelt was next door. and he used this room as the sitting room and office. for us, it's been the main drawing room. and on the winter evenings, the fire is a lovely place for good conversation. traditionally, the yellow oval

room has been used for entertaining. in fact, this is where the first official reception ever held at the white house took place. here on a chilly january 1, 1801, john and abigail adams received visitors from the 13 countries that recognized this brand new nation. and still today, this room offers hospitality for the visiting chiefs of staf. this is where we invite the prime ministers or kings and their wives with the half hour before a state dinner. the earlier part of the day is south lawn. colorful fanfare, sometimes a parade. this has always been an impressive experience of responsibility. i go to the third floor before the occasion and look at the

great map case and pull down liberia, india, then i read the briefings on the visitor and his country. i go over the guest list a few state dinner because hopefully you can say something more than how do you do to our guests who come from all over the united states to meet the visiting head of states. and then, it is a high moment and the color guard enters. of the visiting chief. and i'll return with our guest. perhaps the marine captain who led the group was chuck rob. he's military and impressive. it wasn't until months had passed that i realized i might be looking at our future

son-in-law. we had had so many wonderful personal happy times in this room. here, lyndon and i celebrated just last year our 33rd wedding anniversary. the cake that lynda planned painted our time together, one third of a century. what a day, also our grandson's first birthday. birthdays, the climax is the cake. hold crisis. those sticky little feet and the elegant room. in the end, the furniture didn't suffer one bit, but my nerves did. and then that was the christmas of '67. my husband was plunged into a trip around the world. the christmas for the whole family together. i followed his headlines from

australia to thailand to rome. and then gloriously, he came home on christmas eve. that christmas, two son-in-laws and a new baby, unspoken was the thought that next christmas chuck would not be with us. it was a fragile happiness, like some lovely bubble. it was never prettier. it was our first christmas in the white house. and a moment to catch and hold. but this house is only on loan to its tenants. that we are temporary occupants in it to a continuity of presidents. we have come before us and who will succeed us.

but only a brief time we serve at the extension of 200 million people holding that trust, working to fulfill it. >> the man who sits in this chair sits in the chair that's been occupied by less than 40 men in the long history of this great republic. he is selected by the votes of a majority of the citizens of this republic. he must execute the philosophy and the policies of the people in this nation.

regardless of his own personal feelings from time to time. he's the executor of the will of the people of this nation. and he carries upon his shoulders day and night a burden that always seems, at least to him, too much to carry but only for him to carry. we'll be leaving here shortly after having spent almost 40 years in the federal service. we came to washington with some very deep-set convictions. we felt that we could contribute to making this a better country for all of our people. and some feel we have made great

progress. education, health, housing. and in some respects, we've had many disappointments. but in the last few years in this house and in this office, we have had a chance to impress upon the people of this nation the simple convictions that brought us to this town. and it kept me here for almost four decades. it's important to reflect and look back and see what has been done because there's no better way to judge the future than with the past. but the important thing that faces our country now is for a new president to look at these new challenges and find new answers, find the means of communicating with our young, and providing leadership and inspiration for them so that they will realize that we do care.

find a way to help better understanding come to our races so that we can live together in peace and harmony and equality with justice to all. no president ever came to this office on a platform of doing what was wrong. most of us have made some decisions that were wrong. and as we leave, a good many instances next to the people most of the things were done were done wrong. but every man who sat in this desk or reclined in this chair, was dedicated to doing what he

believed was in the best interest of the people of this country. and when any man takes the oath of office as president, he is determined to do what is right as god gives him the will to know they're right. most people come in to the office with great dreams. and they leave it with many satisfactions and some disappoints. and always some of the dreams have not come true. and i am no exception. but i'm so grateful and i'm so proud that i have had my chance. as to how successful we've been doing the greatest good for the

greatest number, the people themselves and their posterity must ultimately decide. i have the satisfaction and my family has the satisfaction that we gave it all we had. we think we provided some of the answers to the needs of our time.

>> next monday on first ladies, pat nixon. described by her husband as the steadfast support, even through the watergate scandal, her role as first lady was carefully crafted. she rarely spoke in public, but was known to communicate with her husband about official matters, via public memos and presidential aides. in her tenure, she increased the profile of the white house, but the acquisition of antiques and increased access to the home for the general public. join c-span next monday for the life and times of pat nixon, 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span 3, and on c-span radio. c-span is offering a special edition of the first ladies of the united states of america, featuring thoughts on experience

and first lady michelle obama on the role of first ladies throughout history. it's available through the discounted price of $12.95 plus shipping at c-span.org/products. the website has more about the first ladies, including the special section, "welcome to the white house" produced by the partner, the white house historical association which chronicles life in the executive mansion in the tenure of each first lady. now congressman mack thorn berry talks about trying to change the way the defense department spends money and gives security clearances. the texas republican is heading initiative for the house armed services committee for the pentagon acquisition process. the international cities hosted this one-hour event.